==========================================START OF PAGE 1======
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 36962 /March 13, 1996
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-8781
------------------------------
:
In the Matter of : ORDER MAKING FINDINGS,
: IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS,
STUART, COLEMAN & CO., INC., : AND CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
et al. : AGAINST RESPONDENT PAMELA
: WOODS BY DEFAULT
-------------------------------
Pamela Woods is in Default under the Commission's Rules of
Practice, Rules 155 and 310-[1]-, because she failed to
attend a properly noticed hearing on January 23, 1996, which had
been ordered pursuant to the Commission's Order Instituting
Proceedings (Order Instituting) dated August 14, 1995.
I make the following findings of fact that establish that it
is reasonable and proper to hold Respondent Woods in default for
her failure to appear for the January 23, 1996 hearing in this
matter:
At the 30 November 1995, 5 January 1996, and 18 January
1996, telephonic prehearing conferences in which Respondent Woods
participated, I confirmed that this matter was set for an
evidentiary hearing on January 23, 1996.
My order issued with respect to a January 16, 1996
telephonic prehearing conference confirmed that this matter was
set for an evidentiary hearing on January 23, 1996, and stated
that the hearing would be held in the Commission's Miami office.
Respondent Woods appeared in the Commission's Miami office
on January 22, 1996, the day before the hearing.
Respondent Woods failed to appear for the January 23, 1996
evidentiary hearing. The hearing started at 9:30 a.m. and did not
conclude until approximately 6:30 p.m. on that day. At the close
---------FOOTNOTES----------
-[1]-60 Fed. Reg. 32752, 32810 (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.
201.155 and 310).
of its case, the Division of Enforcement (Division) moved for a
default order against this respondent. The motion was not ruled
on at that time.
After the hearing, the Division filed a written motion for
default based on Respondent Woods's failure to appear at the
hearing. That motion was filed on February 1, 1996. The
respondent has not filed any opposition to the post-hearing
default motion. An earlier motion for default, based on
Respondent Woods's failure to file an answer, had been filed on
December 22, 1995. That motion was addressed on January 17,
1996, by the granting of additional time for filing of an answer
by Respondent Woods.
On February 23, 1996, I issued a show cause order requesting
Respondent Woods to show cause as to why she should not be held
in default and why the sanctions requested against her by the
Division in its written motion for default should not be imposed.
The respondent has not filed any response to the show cause
order.
On March 4, 1996, I received Respondent Woods's 124-page
document, including nine exhibits, that is entitled "Respondent
Woods and Snyder Motion for Dismissal of Allegations 15a of the
1934 Securities Act." The document does not address the failure
to appear raised in my Order to Show Cause. Instead, it
addresses the merits of the allegations against Respondent Woods.
I find it unnecessary to reach the merits of this case and I thus
decline specifically to do so. Therefore, I DENY the
respondent's motion for dismissal.
Accordingly, I find that the following allegations set out
in the Order Instituting are true:-[2]-
1. No application for registration as a broker-dealer on
Form BD has been filed or is in effect with the Commission
pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act with respect to
Woods.
2. During the period from in or about April 1992 to in or
about April 1993, Woods was associated as a registered
representative with the West Palm Beach, Florida branch office of
Stuart, Coleman and Co., Inc. (Stuart Coleman).
3. During the period from in or about September 1992 to in
or about December 1992, Woods sold from the Stuart Coleman branch
office approximately $47,000 of limited partnership securities
through an entity other than Stuart Coleman.
---------FOOTNOTES----------
-[2]-The findings herein are binding solely upon Respondent
Woods, and not on any other respondent in this proceeding.
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======
4. During the period from in or about September 1992 to in
or about December 1992, in connection with the limited
partnership security sales described above, Woods was paid
approximately $4,700 in commissions from an entity and person
other than Stuart Coleman.
5. During the period from in or about September 1992 to in
or about December 1992, Woods willfully violated Section 15(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) in that Woods
acted and conducted business as a securities broker-dealer and as
such made use of the mails or means or instrumentalities of
interstate commerce to effect transactions in or to induce the
purchase or sale of securities (other than exempted securities or
commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or commercial bills)
otherwise than on a national securities exchange without being
registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b)
of the Exchange Act. As part of the aforesaid conduct, Woods
would and did engage in acts and practices described in
paragraphs 3 and 4, above.
In view of the foregoing, I find it in the public interest
to sanction Respondent Woods
pursuant to Sections 15(b), 19(h), 21B and 21C of the Exchange
Act.
I ORDER that:
A. Woods cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations and any future violation of Section 15(a) of
the Exchange Act;
B. Woods be and hereby is barred from association with any
broker or dealer, from the date of this order with the
right to reapply after three years;
C. Woods immediately pay disgorgement of $4,700, plus
$1,260.47 prejudgment interest. Interest shall
continue to accrue until funds owed are paid, pursuant
to Rule 600 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice.-[3]-
D. Woods immediately pay a civil money penalty of $4,700.
All funds due according to this order must be paid, pursuant
to Rule 601 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,-[4]- no
---------FOOTNOTES----------
-[3]-60 Fed. Reg. 32819 (1995) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.
201.600).
-[4]-60 Fed. Reg. 32819 (1995) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.
201.601).
==========================================START OF PAGE 3======
later than 21 days after service of this order on Respondent
Woods, and shall be: (a) made by United States postal money
order, certified check, bank cashier's check or bank money order;
(b) made payable to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
(c) hand-delivered to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549; and
(d) submitted under cover letter which identifies Respondent
Woods as a respondent in this proceeding, and the file number of
this proceeding, a copy of which cover letter shall be served on
the undersigned and on the counsel for the Division.
Pursuant to Rule 610 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice,-[5]- the Division shall submit a proposed plan of
disgorgement no later than 60 days after funds or other assets
have been turned over by Respondent Woods.
__________________________________
Lillian A. McEwen
Administrative Law Judge
---------FOOTNOTES----------
-[5]-60 Fed. Reg. 32819 (1995) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.
201.610).
==========================================START OF PAGE 4======